, 1887-11-03
DOOMED BY A DECISION.
The Anarchists Cases Disposed
of for All Time.
The United States Court Refuses
a Writ of Error.
Principles Upon Which the
Ruling Is Based,
How the News Was Received
in Chicago.
The Writ Denied.

OF the Uulted States supreme court upon
the petition tor II writ OF error in the case
OF the Chicago anarchists. was
this afternoon by Chief Justice Waite IN
a long aud carefully prepared opIuiOu.
which occupied thirty five minutes III
reading The Court holds in briet: tiIsl
That the first ten amendment to the
constitution are limitations upon federal
and not upon state action. Secund-Ghat
the jury law OF Illinois is upon its face a
valid aud constitutional provision to the
statute of Utah, which was sustained in
this court in the case OF Hopt vs. the
territory of Utah. Third That it does
not appear in the record hat upon the
evidence in the trial the court should
have declared Juror Sanford incompetent.
Fourth-That the objection to the admis
sion OF the Johann Most letter and the
cross examination of Spies, which counsel
for the prisoners maintained, virtually
compelled them to testify against them
selves, were not objected TO in the trial in
court, and that. therefare, no foundation
was laid Tor the exercise of this courts
jurisdiction. Fifth-That the questions
raised by General Butler in the cases OF
Spies and Eeldeo upon the basis OF their
foreign nationality were neither raised nor
decided In the state courts, and therefore.
cannot be considered here The writ of
error prayed for must consequently be de
MED.
There was no dissenting opinion.
The chief justice, after making the Gus
When as in thIs case annIication ia
made IN ns m the suggCst;on of one II
onI Number IN whom similar annli.ation
has hen nr.y;onslv DID, fr 10 ii.
lowance of . writ of .rror 70 tho b;nba'
court of the site undrr ~section O Of
tba ravis.d Of ,tntse IL q onr dnty 70 a.
certain NOT only whether .nv nm, CT on
r.vi.w HE her. was mad. and d..id,d in
the nroner court allow but whether II ;s
of a cnar.ct-r to iustifv us in hr;nyiny TN.
Indictment here tnr a re-exsninntinn In
our on,n,on a writ ouybt NOT he allow, 4
bv the court if if annears from ths Zee of
the r4cord that ne + Il, raj nm, stion which
is compl.in.d of was so plainly ripLt as
not tn ~r.nuire and .Sneci, Iv if
it il IN accordance with our own VII CON
aid, I'd indynen+s in similar Gus
Tn the nresent b.v. had Tho heneft
of argument in sunport of The annl,ca.
tion while counsel have nor deemed II
their dutv IN 90 fnllv into he merits of
the Questions involved thev have shown
ms distinctly what he decisions were of
winch thew comnIain. how the onestion
arose. Tntbis wav we are able IN deter.
mine as A court in session whether the
errors alleged are such a. RI iustiFv no in
bringing the case here for review-wa
Droceed then To consider What tbe ones.
lion. on which If it EXISTS mr. all our
jurisdiction dpnends The rorticrIar
provision of the constitution of the
limited States On viii h counsel TaIv are.
f,nnd in articles d ( a and ID az tho
amendments.
That the first ten articles of the four-
teentb amendment wer. NOT intended n
limit the now, RS of state Governments in
resne + To their own citiz.ns bnt IN oner-
at. nm the national Government alone was
decided NOR than half a century AGO
and that decision has hem steadily adj.
he,ed to sircr, 1t was commended now
ever in argument. that. though originally
thu. first +, n amendments VIZ adont, d as
Limitations On the ed raj DOW, r. vet in so
far AS thew secure and re- oynize funda-
mental r gbts-tbe common w right, of
man-thty make them the priyil.p, s and
i~mmunities of man as a cit zen of tile
limited Stat, s. and cannot now be abridged
hy a state und,r the fuurte. nth auepd-
ment, In other words while the t n
amendments. as Limitations on power,
only apply to the federal govern
ment and not to states. vet in 80 far AS
they declare or reco.nizs the rights of
D rsons these rights are theirs as citizens
of the United Stat s, and the fourteenth
amendment as to such rights limit a state
power AS the ten amendments had limited
the federal mower.
II is also contepded that the provision
of the tourte.uth amendment, which de-
clares that no state shall deprive Amy
person OF life. liberty or property without
due process of law" implies that every
person charged with crime in a state shall
be entitled to trial by an impartial Jury
and shall not be compelled to testify
against himself. The objections are in
hriof 6rst ,bot rho stotuts of rho stote ~